Narrative changers – politicalbetting.com

System · May 15

Narrative changers – politicalbetting.com

Higher growth, lower interest rates, waiting lists down, govt taking control of agenda on trade/immigration. Is this a point when delivery marks a turn around in govts fortunes? But as always real test is people actually have to feel the benefits, not just be told it’s happened https://t.co/FRHK3ZMs6b

Read the full story here

TheScreamingEagles · May 15

Q: How did the Pope pay for his gown?

A: Papal.

From another PB.

ClippP · May 15

First... And I didn't feel it.....

BartholomewRoberts · May 15

Mexicanpete said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Battlebus said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

david_herdson said:

turbotubbs said:

david_herdson said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Nigelb said:
It's quite obvious the Israeli government is simply lying here.
And of course no independent journalists are allowed anywhere near Gaza.

Israel’s ‘no hunger in Gaza’ narrative flies in face of obvious evidence
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/may/14/isreal-no-hunger-in-gaza-narrative-flies-in-face-of-obvious-evidence-famine

Netanyahu now says flat out that he will not end the war.
Hamas could end the war by surrendering unconditionally and releasing the hostages.

Netanyahu is a bad, corrupt leader who should be replaced but even broken clocks can be right. Why the hell should Israel end the war before Hamas are defeated and before the hostages are released?
Because they are engaged in a crime against humanity.

Israel had the right to wage war against Hamas, and, by extension, the Gaza territory it was the de facto government of, within the bounds of the laws of international conflict. Those bounds have been so consistently breached, and, in its blockade, so grossly breached, that it's time for the international community to act.

Put simply, Israel is not conducting a war of legitimate military action but of, at minimum, ethnic cleansing and, perhaps, extermination. The latter would certainly be the practical outcome of its current policy if continues, as appears to be the Israeli government's intention.

Time to place full sanctions on the regime, and on the country.
I agree with this but can anyone tell me if hostage taking (and murder of said hostages) is a war crime?
Yes, of course it is. So was the original Hamas attack on unarmed civilians, and the murders, rapes and other crimes that accompanied it. That formed a legitimate casus belli.

However, the war crimes of one side do not legitimise* the war crimes of the other, particularly when the other's crimes are considerably in excess of the original.

* There is a case, which I'd agree with, that when one side in a war engages in actions which are illegal but give it an advantage, as a matter of policy, then that legitimises the victim to take proportionate and equivalent actions in retaliation and/or defence. This is dodgy ground legally but it cannot be right that a victim is bound to suffer further - and potentially to lose a war - in defence of a principle that the aggressor rejects. Where is the logic in that? However, that doesn't apply to Israel/Gaza, where Israel started the war with an overwhelming military advantage, and has only increased that advantage since.
An overwhelming military advantage is only relevant when the fight is conventional, but this is not a conventional war.

When Hamas use hospitals as human shields and embed themselves into Gazan society as much as they can, Israel can't use its overwhelming majority advantage so the fighting is going to be riskier and at much more risk of innocent civilian casualties.

Or they could, but it would utterly flatten and wipe out the entire population. Which they could do if they wanted to, but they haven't, quite rightly as it would not be proportional.
Yes they could and it would be genocide but what could/will the world do about it?

That’s the equation in play at the moment
Thankfully Israel isn't doing that, because they're not genocidal, no matter if they regularly get falsely accused of being so.

If Israel were half as bad as they're accused of being, the death toll would be much higher.
Oh, so Israel haven't slaughtered enough of one religious group to be considered genocidal? How many then? Do we have to wait for them to slaughter 6 million?
If they were genocidal then I'd expect 2 million dead approximately - and I would oppose that as evil.

Targetting Hamas, even if it risks collateral damage, OTOH is legitimate.

There are only three ways I can see to avoid collateral damage:

1: Hamas surrenders - my preference.
2: Innocent Palestinians get refuge elsewhere away from the violent conflict - what refuge status and asylum is supposed to be for, is it not?
3: Israel surrenders letting Hamas survive.

I don't see option 3 as acceptable. My preference is 1, then 2, others it seem prefer 3.
Killing 2 million civilians is a bit of a throwing the baby out with the bathwater solution.

I don't believe anyone is supporting Hamas. Some are just a little queasy that in order to resolve the Hamas problem we are looking at incredible levels of collateral damage.

Its reasonable to be queasy about it, but there is no other realistic, serious way of eliminating Hamas than following similar paths to that which eliminated the Tamil Tigers.

Hamas are not the IRA, and its not possible to negotiate with them like that and to try yet again is that definition of insanity quote and something Israel quite reasonably won't countenance after what happened last time.

Either come up with a serious, credible alternative path to completely eliminate Hamas or let Israel finish the job. In the mean time, for any innocent Palestinians, there should be alternative options like refugee status available which is why they exist in times of war.

HYUFD · May 15

The economic growth figures are before Trump's tariffs and Labour's NI rise on employers come into effect

BartholomewRoberts · May 15

In a parallel universe the first quarter might have been a turning point that led to a positive narrative as people felt life was improving.

Unfortunately in our reality we had Reeves putting up National Insurance dramatically, violating their manifesto pledge, cutting pay and conditions for working people - while non-working people already didn't like the Government anyway and are pissed off due to the removal of the unearned WFA benefit.

So no, I doubt this is a turning point in the narrative. Reeves is trying to smother all the green shoots of growth.

And the fact that construction is flat, when that is desperately needed, is a terrible failure.

OldKingCole · May 15

BartholomewRoberts said:

Mexicanpete said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Battlebus said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

david_herdson said:

turbotubbs said:

david_herdson said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Nigelb said:
It's quite obvious the Israeli government is simply lying here.
And of course no independent journalists are allowed anywhere near Gaza.

Israel’s ‘no hunger in Gaza’ narrative flies in face of obvious evidence
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/may/14/isreal-no-hunger-in-gaza-narrative-flies-in-face-of-obvious-evidence-famine

Netanyahu now says flat out that he will not end the war.
Hamas could end the war by surrendering unconditionally and releasing the hostages.

Netanyahu is a bad, corrupt leader who should be replaced but even broken clocks can be right. Why the hell should Israel end the war before Hamas are defeated and before the hostages are released?
Because they are engaged in a crime against humanity.

Israel had the right to wage war against Hamas, and, by extension, the Gaza territory it was the de facto government of, within the bounds of the laws of international conflict. Those bounds have been so consistently breached, and, in its blockade, so grossly breached, that it's time for the international community to act.

Put simply, Israel is not conducting a war of legitimate military action but of, at minimum, ethnic cleansing and, perhaps, extermination. The latter would certainly be the practical outcome of its current policy if continues, as appears to be the Israeli government's intention.

Time to place full sanctions on the regime, and on the country.
I agree with this but can anyone tell me if hostage taking (and murder of said hostages) is a war crime?
Yes, of course it is. So was the original Hamas attack on unarmed civilians, and the murders, rapes and other crimes that accompanied it. That formed a legitimate casus belli.

However, the war crimes of one side do not legitimise* the war crimes of the other, particularly when the other's crimes are considerably in excess of the original.

* There is a case, which I'd agree with, that when one side in a war engages in actions which are illegal but give it an advantage, as a matter of policy, then that legitimises the victim to take proportionate and equivalent actions in retaliation and/or defence. This is dodgy ground legally but it cannot be right that a victim is bound to suffer further - and potentially to lose a war - in defence of a principle that the aggressor rejects. Where is the logic in that? However, that doesn't apply to Israel/Gaza, where Israel started the war with an overwhelming military advantage, and has only increased that advantage since.
An overwhelming military advantage is only relevant when the fight is conventional, but this is not a conventional war.

When Hamas use hospitals as human shields and embed themselves into Gazan society as much as they can, Israel can't use its overwhelming majority advantage so the fighting is going to be riskier and at much more risk of innocent civilian casualties.

Or they could, but it would utterly flatten and wipe out the entire population. Which they could do if they wanted to, but they haven't, quite rightly as it would not be proportional.
Yes they could and it would be genocide but what could/will the world do about it?

That’s the equation in play at the moment
Thankfully Israel isn't doing that, because they're not genocidal, no matter if they regularly get falsely accused of being so.

If Israel were half as bad as they're accused of being, the death toll would be much higher.
Oh, so Israel haven't slaughtered enough of one religious group to be considered genocidal? How many then? Do we have to wait for them to slaughter 6 million?
If they were genocidal then I'd expect 2 million dead approximately - and I would oppose that as evil.

Targetting Hamas, even if it risks collateral damage, OTOH is legitimate.

There are only three ways I can see to avoid collateral damage:

1: Hamas surrenders - my preference.
2: Innocent Palestinians get refuge elsewhere away from the violent conflict - what refuge status and asylum is supposed to be for, is it not?
3: Israel surrenders letting Hamas survive.

I don't see option 3 as acceptable. My preference is 1, then 2, others it seem prefer 3.
Killing 2 million civilians is a bit of a throwing the baby out with the bathwater solution.

I don't believe anyone is supporting Hamas. Some are just a little queasy that in order to resolve the Hamas problem we are looking at incredible levels of collateral damage.
Its reasonable to be queasy about it, but there is no other realistic, serious way of eliminating Hamas than following similar paths to that which eliminated the Tamil Tigers.

Hamas are not the IRA, and its not possible to negotiate with them like that and to try yet again is that definition of insanity quote and something Israel quite reasonably won't countenance after what happened last time.

Either come up with a serious, credible alternative path to completely eliminate Hamas or let Israel finish the job. In the mean time, for any innocent Palestinians, there should be alternative options like refugee status available which is why they exist in times of war.

It might not be so horrible if it wasn't a war involving the same ethinc group separated only by religion.
In that they are are rather like the IRA and the UV though.

Northern_Al · May 15

HYUFD said:
The economic growth figures are before Trump's tariffs and Labour's NI rise on employers come into effect

Do you work for the BBC? That's pretty much what they were saying on the radio this lunchtime - the only path forward is downwards. We'll see.

On the header, I don't quite agree that "the real test is people have to feel the benefit". Positive news stories can have an impact on voting intention all on their own before, or without, people feeling the direct benefit to themselves. At one time Brexit was popular, for example, without people feeling any direct benefit to their pockets.

Malmesbury · May 15

GDP is estimated to be growing at 0.7%
Population is estimated to grow at 0.6% this year.

Hmmm….

williamglenn · May 15

https://x.com/thenewsagents/status/1922991350787535026

"Nigel Farage is running a 𝙘𝙪𝙡𝙩... he's surrounded by people whose idea of policy is to wander to The Marquis Of Granby for a pint."

Ex-Reform MP @RupertLowe10 says Farage is "not fit to be Prime Minister."

BartholomewRoberts · May 15

OldKingCole said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Mexicanpete said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Battlebus said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

david_herdson said:

turbotubbs said:

david_herdson said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Nigelb said:
It's quite obvious the Israeli government is simply lying here.
And of course no independent journalists are allowed anywhere near Gaza.

Israel’s ‘no hunger in Gaza’ narrative flies in face of obvious evidence
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/may/14/isreal-no-hunger-in-gaza-narrative-flies-in-face-of-obvious-evidence-famine

Netanyahu now says flat out that he will not end the war.
Hamas could end the war by surrendering unconditionally and releasing the hostages.

Netanyahu is a bad, corrupt leader who should be replaced but even broken clocks can be right. Why the hell should Israel end the war before Hamas are defeated and before the hostages are released?
Because they are engaged in a crime against humanity.

Israel had the right to wage war against Hamas, and, by extension, the Gaza territory it was the de facto government of, within the bounds of the laws of international conflict. Those bounds have been so consistently breached, and, in its blockade, so grossly breached, that it's time for the international community to act.

Put simply, Israel is not conducting a war of legitimate military action but of, at minimum, ethnic cleansing and, perhaps, extermination. The latter would certainly be the practical outcome of its current policy if continues, as appears to be the Israeli government's intention.

Time to place full sanctions on the regime, and on the country.
I agree with this but can anyone tell me if hostage taking (and murder of said hostages) is a war crime?
Yes, of course it is. So was the original Hamas attack on unarmed civilians, and the murders, rapes and other crimes that accompanied it. That formed a legitimate casus belli.

However, the war crimes of one side do not legitimise* the war crimes of the other, particularly when the other's crimes are considerably in excess of the original.

* There is a case, which I'd agree with, that when one side in a war engages in actions which are illegal but give it an advantage, as a matter of policy, then that legitimises the victim to take proportionate and equivalent actions in retaliation and/or defence. This is dodgy ground legally but it cannot be right that a victim is bound to suffer further - and potentially to lose a war - in defence of a principle that the aggressor rejects. Where is the logic in that? However, that doesn't apply to Israel/Gaza, where Israel started the war with an overwhelming military advantage, and has only increased that advantage since.
An overwhelming military advantage is only relevant when the fight is conventional, but this is not a conventional war.

When Hamas use hospitals as human shields and embed themselves into Gazan society as much as they can, Israel can't use its overwhelming majority advantage so the fighting is going to be riskier and at much more risk of innocent civilian casualties.

Or they could, but it would utterly flatten and wipe out the entire population. Which they could do if they wanted to, but they haven't, quite rightly as it would not be proportional.
Yes they could and it would be genocide but what could/will the world do about it?

That’s the equation in play at the moment
Thankfully Israel isn't doing that, because they're not genocidal, no matter if they regularly get falsely accused of being so.

If Israel were half as bad as they're accused of being, the death toll would be much higher.
Oh, so Israel haven't slaughtered enough of one religious group to be considered genocidal? How many then? Do we have to wait for them to slaughter 6 million?
If they were genocidal then I'd expect 2 million dead approximately - and I would oppose that as evil.

Targetting Hamas, even if it risks collateral damage, OTOH is legitimate.

There are only three ways I can see to avoid collateral damage:

1: Hamas surrenders - my preference.
2: Innocent Palestinians get refuge elsewhere away from the violent conflict - what refuge status and asylum is supposed to be for, is it not?
3: Israel surrenders letting Hamas survive.

I don't see option 3 as acceptable. My preference is 1, then 2, others it seem prefer 3.
Killing 2 million civilians is a bit of a throwing the baby out with the bathwater solution.

I don't believe anyone is supporting Hamas. Some are just a little queasy that in order to resolve the Hamas problem we are looking at incredible levels of collateral damage.
Its reasonable to be queasy about it, but there is no other realistic, serious way of eliminating Hamas than following similar paths to that which eliminated the Tamil Tigers.

Hamas are not the IRA, and its not possible to negotiate with them like that and to try yet again is that definition of insanity quote and something Israel quite reasonably won't countenance after what happened last time.

Either come up with a serious, credible alternative path to completely eliminate Hamas or let Israel finish the job. In the mean time, for any innocent Palestinians, there should be alternative options like refugee status available which is why they exist in times of war.
It might not be so horrible if it wasn't a war involving the same ethinc group separated only by religion.
In that they are are rather like the IRA and the UV though.

In that one respect they are like them, yes.

But the IRA and UV were never anywhere near as nihilistic as Hamas.

The IRA were monsters in their own way who bombed my home town, killing children, while I was a child, but they were a completely different beast.

I don't recall IRA members committing suicide by bombing to kill as many people as they could on their way out to their 72 virgins.

I don't recall the IRA taking hundreds of hostages and killing and raping thousands in one day.

BartholomewRoberts · May 15

Malmesbury said:
GDP is estimated to be growing at 0.7%
Population is estimated to grow at 0.6% this year.

Hmmm….

Population growing 0.6%
Construction growing 0.0%

Hmmm....

Andy_JS · May 15

williamglenn said:
https://x.com/thenewsagents/status/1922991350787535026

"Nigel Farage is running a 𝙘𝙪𝙡𝙩... he's surrounded by people whose idea of policy is to wander to The Marquis Of Granby for a pint."

Ex-Reform MP @RupertLowe10 says Farage is "not fit to be Prime Minister."

He's getting boring now, Lowe.

Mexicanpete · May 15

Malmesbury said:
GDP is estimated to be growing at 0.7%
Population is estimated to grow at 0.6% this year.

Hmmm….

We never had that level of analysis on PB over the previous 14 years. Reporting 0.1% growth and we'd have had a street party.

Stark_Dawning · May 15

Andy_JS said:

williamglenn said:
https://x.com/thenewsagents/status/1922991350787535026

"Nigel Farage is running a 𝙘𝙪𝙡𝙩... he's surrounded by people whose idea of policy is to wander to The Marquis Of Granby for a pint."

Ex-Reform MP @RupertLowe10 says Farage is "not fit to be Prime Minister."
He's getting boring now, Lowe.

He makes a fair point though - if Nigel was prepared to have him locked up because he got in his way politically, what would he do with the full mechanisms of the state behind him?

rjk · May 15

Malmesbury said:
GDP is estimated to be growing at 0.7%
Population is estimated to grow at 0.6% this year.

Hmmm….

Isn't the GDP figure quarterly?

Malmesbury · May 15

Mexicanpete said:

Malmesbury said:
GDP is estimated to be growing at 0.7%
Population is estimated to grow at 0.6% this year.

Hmmm….
We never had that level of analysis on PB over the previous 14 years. Reporting 0.1% growth and we'd have had a street party.

GDP per capita has been stalled for a while. If that doesn’t change, then people won’t feel better off.

If we don’t change the productivity of the workforce, then adding more people will increase GDP, but not GDP per head.

Mexicanpete · May 15

Malmesbury said:

Mexicanpete said:

Malmesbury said:
GDP is estimated to be growing at 0.7%
Population is estimated to grow at 0.6% this year.

Hmmm….
We never had that level of analysis on PB over the previous 14 years. Reporting 0.1% growth and we'd have had a street party.
GDP per capita has been stalled for a while. If that doesn’t change, then people won’t feel better off.

If we don’t change the productivity of the workforce, then adding more people will increase GDP, but not GDP per head.

I don't dispute your figures or the correlation. I am impressed with the analysis, funny we didn't see it under the Tory administration.

Close down PB and national productivity goes through the roof.

BartholomewRoberts · May 15

Mexicanpete said:

Malmesbury said:

Mexicanpete said:

Malmesbury said:
GDP is estimated to be growing at 0.7%
Population is estimated to grow at 0.6% this year.

Hmmm….
We never had that level of analysis on PB over the previous 14 years. Reporting 0.1% growth and we'd have had a street party.
GDP per capita has been stalled for a while. If that doesn’t change, then people won’t feel better off.

If we don’t change the productivity of the workforce, then adding more people will increase GDP, but not GDP per head.
I don't dispute your figures or the correlation. I am impressed with the analysis, funny we didn't see it under the Tory administration.

Funny, I recall it being a point repeatedly made.

Why didn't you make it during the Tory administration? Did you not think about it?

rcs1000 · May 15

Malmesbury said:
GDP is estimated to be growing at 0.7%
Population is estimated to grow at 0.6% this year.

Hmmm….

Hang on... that's a quarter-over-quarter GDP number isn't it? Not y-o-y.

Andy_JS · May 15

Malmesbury said:
GDP is estimated to be growing at 0.7%
Population is estimated to grow at 0.6% this year.

Hmmm….

So almost no growth in real terms.

Malmesbury · May 15

rcs1000 said:

Malmesbury said:
GDP is estimated to be growing at 0.7%
Population is estimated to grow at 0.6% this year.

Hmmm….
Hang on... that's a quarter-over-quarter GDP number isn't it? Not y-o-y.

True actually. My bad.

carnforth · May 15

MoonRabbit said:

https://news.sky.com/story/leaked-recording-reveals-top-tory-knew-of-flaws-in-post-brexit-plan-to-return-illegal-migrants-13367821

Is Chris right? The stats said at least half already claimed asylum in another country?

That would have halved it straight away?
Only half to process?
Only half to put up in hotels?
Only half the costs?

MPs should ask for the actual answer to be put in front of them.

We used to ask a lot, but other countries refused our requests:

"In 2018, there were 1,940 requests from other member states to transfer individuals into the UK under the Dublin Regulation, and 5,510 requests from the UK to transfer individuals out of the UK to other member states.

Over the same period, there were 1,215 transfers into the UK under the Dublin Regulation. The majority (946) of these transfers came from Greece.

There were 209 transfers out of the UK under the Dublin Regulation. A quarter of these (51) were transfers to France."

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-statistics-year-ending-december-2018/how-many-people-do-we-grant-asylum-or-protection-to

So, we made 5510 requests, of which 209 happened.

There is no magic slam-dunk link-brexit-to-the-boats story. I promise.

BartholomewRoberts · May 15

carnforth said:

MoonRabbit said:

https://news.sky.com/story/leaked-recording-reveals-top-tory-knew-of-flaws-in-post-brexit-plan-to-return-illegal-migrants-13367821

Is Chris right? The stats said at least half already claimed asylum in another country?

That would have halved it straight away?
Only half to process?
Only half to put up in hotels?
Only half the costs?

MPs should ask for the actual answer to be put in front of them.
We used to ask a lot, but other countries refused our requests:

"In 2018, there were 1,940 requests from other member states to transfer individuals into the UK under the Dublin Regulation, and 5,510 requests from the UK to transfer individuals out of the UK to other member states.

Over the same period, there were 1,215 transfers into the UK under the Dublin Regulation. The majority (946) of these transfers came from Greece.

There were 209 transfers out of the UK under the Dublin Regulation. A quarter of these (51) were transfers to France."

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-statistics-year-ending-december-2018/how-many-people-do-we-grant-asylum-or-protection-to

So, we made 5510 requests, of which 209 happened.

There is no magic slam-dunk link-brexit-to-the-boats story. I promise.

So net the Dublin Regulation was seeing transfers into the UK?

Malmesbury · May 15

rcs1000 said:

Malmesbury said:
GDP is estimated to be growing at 0.7%
Population is estimated to grow at 0.6% this year.

Hmmm….
Hang on... that's a quarter-over-quarter GDP number isn't it? Not y-o-y.

Your right

IMF and OECD are predicting 1.x% for the whole year.

williamglenn · May 15

Stark_Dawning said:

Andy_JS said:

williamglenn said:
https://x.com/thenewsagents/status/1922991350787535026

"Nigel Farage is running a 𝙘𝙪𝙡𝙩... he's surrounded by people whose idea of policy is to wander to The Marquis Of Granby for a pint."

Ex-Reform MP @RupertLowe10 says Farage is "not fit to be Prime Minister."
He's getting boring now, Lowe.
He makes a fair point though - if Nigel was prepared to have him locked up because he got in his way politically, what would he do with the full mechanisms of the state behind him?

Interesting choice from both sides for him to go on the News Agents podcast.

DavidL · May 15

The question is how much these Q1 figures have been distorted by the anticipation of Trump's tariffs. It appears that there was a significant export net effect in February in particular with a lot of advance orders being made. Will we pay the price of that effect being reversed in Q2 and Q3 or is this the sort of boost that can get our economy moving again after 6 flat months?

We won't know for a few months yet.

nova · May 15

HYUFD said:
The economic growth figures are before Trump's tariffs and Labour's NI rise on employers come into effect

You'd expect those to hit at least temporarily. Didn't the Bank of England reckon a 0.3 reduction in GDP over 3 years? So hopefully not a huge hit from the tariffs. The NI rise will be one to watch in terms of job losses. A lot of the initial noise will be from the businesses that were on the brink, but it'll likely take a while to find out if the effects were exaggerated.

On the flip side, there's supposed to be all the things those tax rises are actually spent on. I read something today suggesting that the big spending commitments which were expected to give another (at least temporary) boost, hadn't really started yet. Might well be Labour finding it more difficult to actually spend on infrastructure, but you'd expect those construction stats to perk up pretty quickly if they're going to have any success.

And of course employers are dealing with the big minimum wage increases - they're clearly going to cause problems for a lot of businesses, but for a few million employees, that money is only just in their pockets.

Ultimately, I think Labour hope they won't be judged on how people feel after 10 months, but after 3-4 years. If they don't feel better off then, Starmer will really struggle.

KnightOut · May 15

BartholomewRoberts said:

Mexicanpete said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Battlebus said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

david_herdson said:

turbotubbs said:

david_herdson said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Nigelb said:
It's quite obvious the Israeli government is simply lying here.
And of course no independent journalists are allowed anywhere near Gaza.

Israel’s ‘no hunger in Gaza’ narrative flies in face of obvious evidence
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/may/14/isreal-no-hunger-in-gaza-narrative-flies-in-face-of-obvious-evidence-famine

Netanyahu now says flat out that he will not end the war.
Hamas could end the war by surrendering unconditionally and releasing the hostages.

Netanyahu is a bad, corrupt leader who should be replaced but even broken clocks can be right. Why the hell should Israel end the war before Hamas are defeated and before the hostages are released?
Because they are engaged in a crime against humanity.

Israel had the right to wage war against Hamas, and, by extension, the Gaza territory it was the de facto government of, within the bounds of the laws of international conflict. Those bounds have been so consistently breached, and, in its blockade, so grossly breached, that it's time for the international community to act.

Put simply, Israel is not conducting a war of legitimate military action but of, at minimum, ethnic cleansing and, perhaps, extermination. The latter would certainly be the practical outcome of its current policy if continues, as appears to be the Israeli government's intention.

Time to place full sanctions on the regime, and on the country.
I agree with this but can anyone tell me if hostage taking (and murder of said hostages) is a war crime?
Yes, of course it is. So was the original Hamas attack on unarmed civilians, and the murders, rapes and other crimes that accompanied it. That formed a legitimate casus belli.

However, the war crimes of one side do not legitimise* the war crimes of the other, particularly when the other's crimes are considerably in excess of the original.

* There is a case, which I'd agree with, that when one side in a war engages in actions which are illegal but give it an advantage, as a matter of policy, then that legitimises the victim to take proportionate and equivalent actions in retaliation and/or defence. This is dodgy ground legally but it cannot be right that a victim is bound to suffer further - and potentially to lose a war - in defence of a principle that the aggressor rejects. Where is the logic in that? However, that doesn't apply to Israel/Gaza, where Israel started the war with an overwhelming military advantage, and has only increased that advantage since.
An overwhelming military advantage is only relevant when the fight is conventional, but this is not a conventional war.

When Hamas use hospitals as human shields and embed themselves into Gazan society as much as they can, Israel can't use its overwhelming majority advantage so the fighting is going to be riskier and at much more risk of innocent civilian casualties.

Or they could, but it would utterly flatten and wipe out the entire population. Which they could do if they wanted to, but they haven't, quite rightly as it would not be proportional.
Yes they could and it would be genocide but what could/will the world do about it?

That’s the equation in play at the moment
Thankfully Israel isn't doing that, because they're not genocidal, no matter if they regularly get falsely accused of being so.

If Israel were half as bad as they're accused of being, the death toll would be much higher.
Oh, so Israel haven't slaughtered enough of one religious group to be considered genocidal? How many then? Do we have to wait for them to slaughter 6 million?
If they were genocidal then I'd expect 2 million dead approximately - and I would oppose that as evil.

Targetting Hamas, even if it risks collateral damage, OTOH is legitimate.

There are only three ways I can see to avoid collateral damage:

1: Hamas surrenders - my preference.
2: Innocent Palestinians get refuge elsewhere away from the violent conflict - what refuge status and asylum is supposed to be for, is it not?
3: Israel surrenders letting Hamas survive.

I don't see option 3 as acceptable. My preference is 1, then 2, others it seem prefer 3.
Killing 2 million civilians is a bit of a throwing the baby out with the bathwater solution.

I don't believe anyone is supporting Hamas. Some are just a little queasy that in order to resolve the Hamas problem we are looking at incredible levels of collateral damage.

Either come up with a serious, credible alternative path to completely eliminate Hamas or let Israel finish the job. In the mean time, for any innocent Palestinians, there should be alternative options like refugee status available which is why they exist in times of war.

The definition of 'innocent Palestinians' is hard to nail down though.

Are those who would never engage in acts of terror themselves but who are broadly sympathetic to Hamas 'innocent'?

Someone who has a cousin who is active in Hamas who comes to stay with them sometimes?

Someone who does most of their economic activity with commerce that indirectly funds Hamas?

These kinds of issues aren't black and white and are just as relevant now as they were in NI during the troubles.

Cicero · May 15

If Labour does get a good GDP tailwind and the waiting lists continue to fall, as does the immigration number, the right is going to have real problems going forward. Thoughts and Prayers for Leon et al, if that happened.

Mexicanpete · May 15

BartholomewRoberts said:

Mexicanpete said:

Malmesbury said:

Mexicanpete said:

Malmesbury said:
GDP is estimated to be growing at 0.7%
Population is estimated to grow at 0.6% this year.

Hmmm….
We never had that level of analysis on PB over the previous 14 years. Reporting 0.1% growth and we'd have had a street party.
GDP per capita has been stalled for a while. If that doesn’t change, then people won’t feel better off.

If we don’t change the productivity of the workforce, then adding more people will increase GDP, but not GDP per head.
I don't dispute your figures or the correlation. I am impressed with the analysis, funny we didn't see it under the Tory administration.
Funny, I recall it being a point repeatedly made.

Why didn't you make it during the Tory administration? Did you not think about it?

No.

Malmesbury · May 15

Mexicanpete said:

Malmesbury said:

Mexicanpete said:

Malmesbury said:
GDP is estimated to be growing at 0.7%
Population is estimated to grow at 0.6% this year.

Hmmm….
We never had that level of analysis on PB over the previous 14 years. Reporting 0.1% growth and we'd have had a street party.
GDP per capita has been stalled for a while. If that doesn’t change, then people won’t feel better off.

If we don’t change the productivity of the workforce, then adding more people will increase GDP, but not GDP per head.
I don't dispute your figures or the correlation. I am impressed with the analysis, funny we didn't see it under the Tory administration.

Close down PB and national productivity goes through the roof.

I’ve been making the point about investing in productivity for years.

For example, according to some estimates, social workers spend 60%+ of their time on admin. So if we invested in reworked processes to align with actual work, remove duplicate form filling etc. we might be able to reduce that to 40%+ (say)

Which would result in a 50% increase in the time they get to do social work in…

Or if we employed enough staff to fill the rosters in the NHS, we wouldn’t just drop the wage bill. We could rework contracts/hours to be more human friendly - which aside from improving staff retention (savings there) - could lead to the same doctors and nurses treating the same patients more often. Which would improve outcomes - increased productivity.

Casino_Royale · May 15

Cicero said:
If Labour does get a good GDP tailwind and the waiting lists continue to fall, as does the immigration number, the right is going to have real problems going forward. Thoughts and Prayers for Leon et al, if that happened.

So, you'll be happy if immigration numbers fall then?

carnforth · May 15

BartholomewRoberts said:

carnforth said:

MoonRabbit said:

https://news.sky.com/story/leaked-recording-reveals-top-tory-knew-of-flaws-in-post-brexit-plan-to-return-illegal-migrants-13367821

Is Chris right? The stats said at least half already claimed asylum in another country?

That would have halved it straight away?
Only half to process?
Only half to put up in hotels?
Only half the costs?

MPs should ask for the actual answer to be put in front of them.
We used to ask a lot, but other countries refused our requests:

"In 2018, there were 1,940 requests from other member states to transfer individuals into the UK under the Dublin Regulation, and 5,510 requests from the UK to transfer individuals out of the UK to other member states.

Over the same period, there were 1,215 transfers into the UK under the Dublin Regulation. The majority (946) of these transfers came from Greece.

There were 209 transfers out of the UK under the Dublin Regulation. A quarter of these (51) were transfers to France."

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-statistics-year-ending-december-2018/how-many-people-do-we-grant-asylum-or-protection-to

So, we made 5510 requests, of which 209 happened.

There is no magic slam-dunk link-brexit-to-the-boats story. I promise.
So net the Dublin Regulation was seeing transfers into the UK?

Some years, yes. I can't find the table, but it was several years. And at no time was the net movement above a couple of thousand either way.

Essentially, we were following the rules and other countries weren't. As per.

nova · May 15

BartholomewRoberts said:

carnforth said:

MoonRabbit said:

https://news.sky.com/story/leaked-recording-reveals-top-tory-knew-of-flaws-in-post-brexit-plan-to-return-illegal-migrants-13367821

Is Chris right? The stats said at least half already claimed asylum in another country?

That would have halved it straight away?
Only half to process?
Only half to put up in hotels?
Only half the costs?

MPs should ask for the actual answer to be put in front of them.
We used to ask a lot, but other countries refused our requests:

"In 2018, there were 1,940 requests from other member states to transfer individuals into the UK under the Dublin Regulation, and 5,510 requests from the UK to transfer individuals out of the UK to other member states.

Over the same period, there were 1,215 transfers into the UK under the Dublin Regulation. The majority (946) of these transfers came from Greece.

There were 209 transfers out of the UK under the Dublin Regulation. A quarter of these (51) were transfers to France."

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-statistics-year-ending-december-2018/how-many-people-do-we-grant-asylum-or-protection-to

So, we made 5510 requests, of which 209 happened.

There is no magic slam-dunk link-brexit-to-the-boats story. I promise.
So net the Dublin Regulation was seeing transfers into the UK?

That appears to be the case as we got close to the Brexit vote, and after.

According to this page (which I suspect by the site name might be a tad pro-migration), it was very much the opposite before, albeit not massive numbers (e.g. approx 1200 out, 370 in for 2008).

https://freemovement.org.uk/are-refugees-obliged-to-claim-asylum-in-the-first-safe-country-they-reach/

Mexicanpete · May 15

BartholomewRoberts said:

Mexicanpete said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Battlebus said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

david_herdson said:

turbotubbs said:

david_herdson said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Nigelb said:
It's quite obvious the Israeli government is simply lying here.
And of course no independent journalists are allowed anywhere near Gaza.

Israel’s ‘no hunger in Gaza’ narrative flies in face of obvious evidence
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/may/14/isreal-no-hunger-in-gaza-narrative-flies-in-face-of-obvious-evidence-famine

Netanyahu now says flat out that he will not end the war.
Hamas could end the war by surrendering unconditionally and releasing the hostages.

Netanyahu is a bad, corrupt leader who should be replaced but even broken clocks can be right. Why the hell should Israel end the war before Hamas are defeated and before the hostages are released?
Because they are engaged in a crime against humanity.

Israel had the right to wage war against Hamas, and, by extension, the Gaza territory it was the de facto government of, within the bounds of the laws of international conflict. Those bounds have been so consistently breached, and, in its blockade, so grossly breached, that it's time for the international community to act.

Put simply, Israel is not conducting a war of legitimate military action but of, at minimum, ethnic cleansing and, perhaps, extermination. The latter would certainly be the practical outcome of its current policy if continues, as appears to be the Israeli government's intention.

Time to place full sanctions on the regime, and on the country.
I agree with this but can anyone tell me if hostage taking (and murder of said hostages) is a war crime?
Yes, of course it is. So was the original Hamas attack on unarmed civilians, and the murders, rapes and other crimes that accompanied it. That formed a legitimate casus belli.

However, the war crimes of one side do not legitimise* the war crimes of the other, particularly when the other's crimes are considerably in excess of the original.

* There is a case, which I'd agree with, that when one side in a war engages in actions which are illegal but give it an advantage, as a matter of policy, then that legitimises the victim to take proportionate and equivalent actions in retaliation and/or defence. This is dodgy ground legally but it cannot be right that a victim is bound to suffer further - and potentially to lose a war - in defence of a principle that the aggressor rejects. Where is the logic in that? However, that doesn't apply to Israel/Gaza, where Israel started the war with an overwhelming military advantage, and has only increased that advantage since.
An overwhelming military advantage is only relevant when the fight is conventional, but this is not a conventional war.

When Hamas use hospitals as human shields and embed themselves into Gazan society as much as they can, Israel can't use its overwhelming majority advantage so the fighting is going to be riskier and at much more risk of innocent civilian casualties.

Or they could, but it would utterly flatten and wipe out the entire population. Which they could do if they wanted to, but they haven't, quite rightly as it would not be proportional.
Yes they could and it would be genocide but what could/will the world do about it?

That’s the equation in play at the moment
Thankfully Israel isn't doing that, because they're not genocidal, no matter if they regularly get falsely accused of being so.

If Israel were half as bad as they're accused of being, the death toll would be much higher.
Oh, so Israel haven't slaughtered enough of one religious group to be considered genocidal? How many then? Do we have to wait for them to slaughter 6 million?
If they were genocidal then I'd expect 2 million dead approximately - and I would oppose that as evil.

Targetting Hamas, even if it risks collateral damage, OTOH is legitimate.

There are only three ways I can see to avoid collateral damage:

1: Hamas surrenders - my preference.
2: Innocent Palestinians get refuge elsewhere away from the violent conflict - what refuge status and asylum is supposed to be for, is it not?
3: Israel surrenders letting Hamas survive.

I don't see option 3 as acceptable. My preference is 1, then 2, others it seem prefer 3.
Killing 2 million civilians is a bit of a throwing the baby out with the bathwater solution.

I don't believe anyone is supporting Hamas. Some are just a little queasy that in order to resolve the Hamas problem we are looking at incredible levels of collateral damage.
Its reasonable to be queasy about it, but there is no other realistic, serious way of eliminating Hamas than following similar paths to that which eliminated the Tamil Tigers.

Hamas are not the IRA, and its not possible to negotiate with them like that and to try yet again is that definition of insanity quote and something Israel quite reasonably won't countenance after what happened last time.

Either come up with a serious, credible alternative path to completely eliminate Hamas or let Israel finish the job. In the mean time, for any innocent Palestinians, there should be alternative options like refugee status available which is why they exist in times of war.

You can't starve 2 million Palestinians to eradicate a 30,000 strong death squad. There is no moral case.

In your pontificated blood lust you forget that a key reason the suffering continues is that the Prime Minister needs hostilities to continue to stay out of jail.

bondegezou · May 15

BartholomewRoberts said:

OldKingCole said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Mexicanpete said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Battlebus said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

david_herdson said:

turbotubbs said:

david_herdson said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Nigelb said:
It's quite obvious the Israeli government is simply lying here.
And of course no independent journalists are allowed anywhere near Gaza.

Israel’s ‘no hunger in Gaza’ narrative flies in face of obvious evidence
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/may/14/isreal-no-hunger-in-gaza-narrative-flies-in-face-of-obvious-evidence-famine

Netanyahu now says flat out that he will not end the war.
Hamas could end the war by surrendering unconditionally and releasing the hostages.

Netanyahu is a bad, corrupt leader who should be replaced but even broken clocks can be right. Why the hell should Israel end the war before Hamas are defeated and before the hostages are released?
Because they are engaged in a crime against humanity.

Israel had the right to wage war against Hamas, and, by extension, the Gaza territory it was the de facto government of, within the bounds of the laws of international conflict. Those bounds have been so consistently breached, and, in its blockade, so grossly breached, that it's time for the international community to act.

Put simply, Israel is not conducting a war of legitimate military action but of, at minimum, ethnic cleansing and, perhaps, extermination. The latter would certainly be the practical outcome of its current policy if continues, as appears to be the Israeli government's intention.

Time to place full sanctions on the regime, and on the country.
I agree with this but can anyone tell me if hostage taking (and murder of said hostages) is a war crime?
Yes, of course it is. So was the original Hamas attack on unarmed civilians, and the murders, rapes and other crimes that accompanied it. That formed a legitimate casus belli.

However, the war crimes of one side do not legitimise* the war crimes of the other, particularly when the other's crimes are considerably in excess of the original.

* There is a case, which I'd agree with, that when one side in a war engages in actions which are illegal but give it an advantage, as a matter of policy, then that legitimises the victim to take proportionate and equivalent actions in retaliation and/or defence. This is dodgy ground legally but it cannot be right that a victim is bound to suffer further - and potentially to lose a war - in defence of a principle that the aggressor rejects. Where is the logic in that? However, that doesn't apply to Israel/Gaza, where Israel started the war with an overwhelming military advantage, and has only increased that advantage since.
An overwhelming military advantage is only relevant when the fight is conventional, but this is not a conventional war.

When Hamas use hospitals as human shields and embed themselves into Gazan society as much as they can, Israel can't use its overwhelming majority advantage so the fighting is going to be riskier and at much more risk of innocent civilian casualties.

Or they could, but it would utterly flatten and wipe out the entire population. Which they could do if they wanted to, but they haven't, quite rightly as it would not be proportional.
Yes they could and it would be genocide but what could/will the world do about it?

That’s the equation in play at the moment
Thankfully Israel isn't doing that, because they're not genocidal, no matter if they regularly get falsely accused of being so.

If Israel were half as bad as they're accused of being, the death toll would be much higher.
Oh, so Israel haven't slaughtered enough of one religious group to be considered genocidal? How many then? Do we have to wait for them to slaughter 6 million?
If they were genocidal then I'd expect 2 million dead approximately - and I would oppose that as evil.

Targetting Hamas, even if it risks collateral damage, OTOH is legitimate.

There are only three ways I can see to avoid collateral damage:

1: Hamas surrenders - my preference.
2: Innocent Palestinians get refuge elsewhere away from the violent conflict - what refuge status and asylum is supposed to be for, is it not?
3: Israel surrenders letting Hamas survive.

I don't see option 3 as acceptable. My preference is 1, then 2, others it seem prefer 3.
Killing 2 million civilians is a bit of a throwing the baby out with the bathwater solution.

I don't believe anyone is supporting Hamas. Some are just a little queasy that in order to resolve the Hamas problem we are looking at incredible levels of collateral damage.
Its reasonable to be queasy about it, but there is no other realistic, serious way of eliminating Hamas than following similar paths to that which eliminated the Tamil Tigers.

Hamas are not the IRA, and its not possible to negotiate with them like that and to try yet again is that definition of insanity quote and something Israel quite reasonably won't countenance after what happened last time.

Either come up with a serious, credible alternative path to completely eliminate Hamas or let Israel finish the job. In the mean time, for any innocent Palestinians, there should be alternative options like refugee status available which is why they exist in times of war.
It might not be so horrible if it wasn't a war involving the same ethinc group separated only by religion.
In that they are are rather like the IRA and the UV though.
In that one respect they are like them, yes.

But the IRA and UV were never anywhere near as nihilistic as Hamas.

The IRA were monsters in their own way who bombed my home town, killing children, while I was a child, but they were a completely different beast.

I don't recall IRA members committing suicide by bombing to kill as many people as they could on their way out to their 72 virgins.

I don't recall the IRA taking hundreds of hostages and killing and raping thousands in one day.

I don't recall the RAF flattening Derry either.

But peace only happens when we move beyond the past. It entails a step into the future. If Israel is not intent on genocide or ethnic cleansing, as you insist, then Israel can start by making that clear to the Palestinians.

Eabhal · May 15

Casino_Royale said:

Cicero said:
If Labour does get a good GDP tailwind and the waiting lists continue to fall, as does the immigration number, the right is going to have real problems going forward. Thoughts and Prayers for Leon et al, if that happened.
So, you'll be happy if immigration numbers fall then?

What proportion of the UK population is comfortable with over 1.3 million immigrants a year? Even the wokeist, leftiest inner city Labour activist will acknowledge that might cause some challenges for public services and housing.

There is a lot of strawmanning in the Right's perception of the immigration debate. We discuss it all the time, almost everyone agrees that asylum by small boat is a terrible phenomenon and should be deterred, and net migration under a Labour government inside the EU was about 200,000, versus 900,000 outside the EU under the Tories.

bondegezou · May 15

Malmesbury said:

rcs1000 said:

Malmesbury said:
GDP is estimated to be growing at 0.7%
Population is estimated to grow at 0.6% this year.

Hmmm….
Hang on... that's a quarter-over-quarter GDP number isn't it? Not y-o-y.
True actually. My bad.

So it's 2.8% GDP growth vs. 0.6% population growth, so 2.2% GDP-per-capita growth.

Malmesbury · May 15

bondegezou said:

Malmesbury said:

rcs1000 said:

Malmesbury said:
GDP is estimated to be growing at 0.7%
Population is estimated to grow at 0.6% this year.

Hmmm….
Hang on... that's a quarter-over-quarter GDP number isn't it? Not y-o-y.
True actually. My bad.
So it's 2.8% GDP growth vs. 0.6% population growth, so 2.2% GDP-per-capita growth.

If you look at previous years, you will often see more growth in Q4/Q1 than the rest of the year.

For example, last year, Q1 was 0.9%

This is why the OECD and IMF are predicting growth of 1.5% or so for the year

nova · May 15

carnforth said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

carnforth said:

MoonRabbit said:

https://news.sky.com/story/leaked-recording-reveals-top-tory-knew-of-flaws-in-post-brexit-plan-to-return-illegal-migrants-13367821

Is Chris right? The stats said at least half already claimed asylum in another country?

That would have halved it straight away?
Only half to process?
Only half to put up in hotels?
Only half the costs?

MPs should ask for the actual answer to be put in front of them.
We used to ask a lot, but other countries refused our requests:

"In 2018, there were 1,940 requests from other member states to transfer individuals into the UK under the Dublin Regulation, and 5,510 requests from the UK to transfer individuals out of the UK to other member states.

Over the same period, there were 1,215 transfers into the UK under the Dublin Regulation. The majority (946) of these transfers came from Greece.

There were 209 transfers out of the UK under the Dublin Regulation. A quarter of these (51) were transfers to France."

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-statistics-year-ending-december-2018/how-many-people-do-we-grant-asylum-or-protection-to

So, we made 5510 requests, of which 209 happened.

There is no magic slam-dunk link-brexit-to-the-boats story. I promise.
So net the Dublin Regulation was seeing transfers into the UK?
Some years, yes. I can't find the table, but it was several years. And at no time was the net movement above a couple of thousand either way.

Essentially, we were following the rules and other countries weren't. As per.

I'm not sure that's totally accurate. The stats I've just linked to suggest that it was very very much the opposite, but started to come down a lot as the Brexit vote approached, (as relationships with other countries became strained?).

I can only find stats on "success of requests" from 2016, but it looks like 8% of ours were successful, but Germany and France were only successful with 6% and 5% respectively. The average was 12%, so not a massive difference either way, and certainly not suggestive that we were following rules that the other European countries weren't.

BartholomewRoberts · May 15

bondegezou said:

Malmesbury said:

rcs1000 said:

Malmesbury said:
GDP is estimated to be growing at 0.7%
Population is estimated to grow at 0.6% this year.

Hmmm….
Hang on... that's a quarter-over-quarter GDP number isn't it? Not y-o-y.
True actually. My bad.
So it's 2.8% GDP growth vs. 0.6% population growth, so 2.2% GDP-per-capita growth.

In one quarter before Reeves jobs tax hike, yes. Be curious what happens next quarter.

And with 0.0% construction growth despite catastrophic shortages of housing and Labour pledging to boost construction to 1.5 million new homes a year.

carnforth · May 15

nova said:

carnforth said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

carnforth said:

MoonRabbit said:

https://news.sky.com/story/leaked-recording-reveals-top-tory-knew-of-flaws-in-post-brexit-plan-to-return-illegal-migrants-13367821

Is Chris right? The stats said at least half already claimed asylum in another country?

That would have halved it straight away?
Only half to process?
Only half to put up in hotels?
Only half the costs?

MPs should ask for the actual answer to be put in front of them.
We used to ask a lot, but other countries refused our requests:

"In 2018, there were 1,940 requests from other member states to transfer individuals into the UK under the Dublin Regulation, and 5,510 requests from the UK to transfer individuals out of the UK to other member states.

Over the same period, there were 1,215 transfers into the UK under the Dublin Regulation. The majority (946) of these transfers came from Greece.

There were 209 transfers out of the UK under the Dublin Regulation. A quarter of these (51) were transfers to France."

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-statistics-year-ending-december-2018/how-many-people-do-we-grant-asylum-or-protection-to

So, we made 5510 requests, of which 209 happened.

There is no magic slam-dunk link-brexit-to-the-boats story. I promise.
So net the Dublin Regulation was seeing transfers into the UK?
Some years, yes. I can't find the table, but it was several years. And at no time was the net movement above a couple of thousand either way.

Essentially, we were following the rules and other countries weren't. As per.
I'm not sure that's totally accurate. The stats I've just linked to suggest that it was very very much the opposite, but started to come down a lot as the Brexit vote approached, (as relationships with other countries became strained?).

I can only find stats on "success of requests" from 2016, but it looks like 8% of ours were successful, but Germany and France were only successful with 6% and 5% respectively. The average was 12%, so not a massive difference either way, and certainly not suggestive that we were following rules that the other European countries weren't.

Thanks for the stats. Looks like you're right about low success rates across the board. Though "as relationships were strained" is a form of not following the rules, no?

Nigelb · May 15

TheScreamingEagles said:
Q: How did the Pope pay for his gown?

A: Papal.

.

Bull.

He gets it for free.

BlancheLivermore · May 15

BartholomewRoberts said:

bondegezou said:

Malmesbury said:

rcs1000 said:

Malmesbury said:
GDP is estimated to be growing at 0.7%
Population is estimated to grow at 0.6% this year.

Hmmm….
Hang on... that's a quarter-over-quarter GDP number isn't it? Not y-o-y.
True actually. My bad.
So it's 2.8% GDP growth vs. 0.6% population growth, so 2.2% GDP-per-capita growth.
In one quarter before Reeves jobs tax hike, yes. Be curious what happens next quarter.

And with 0.0% construction growth despite catastrophic shortages of housing and Labour pledging to boost construction to 1.5 million new homes a year.

Don't think the pledge was per year

They're going to fall a really long way short if they promised 7.5m new homes

Eabhal · May 15

BartholomewRoberts said:

bondegezou said:

Malmesbury said:

rcs1000 said:

Malmesbury said:
GDP is estimated to be growing at 0.7%
Population is estimated to grow at 0.6% this year.

Hmmm….
Hang on... that's a quarter-over-quarter GDP number isn't it? Not y-o-y.
True actually. My bad.
So it's 2.8% GDP growth vs. 0.6% population growth, so 2.2% GDP-per-capita growth.
In one quarter before Reeves jobs tax hike, yes. Be curious what happens next quarter.

And with 0.0% construction growth despite catastrophic shortages of housing and Labour pledging to boost construction to 1.5 million new homes a year.

Businesses don't wait for tax changes to be implemented before they react to them. And to be fair, there are hints that the labour market has already loosened up a bit in response.

Nigelb · May 15

.

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

bondegezou said:

Malmesbury said:

rcs1000 said:

Malmesbury said:
GDP is estimated to be growing at 0.7%
Population is estimated to grow at 0.6% this year.

Hmmm….
Hang on... that's a quarter-over-quarter GDP number isn't it? Not y-o-y.
True actually. My bad.
So it's 2.8% GDP growth vs. 0.6% population growth, so 2.2% GDP-per-capita growth.
In one quarter before Reeves jobs tax hike, yes. Be curious what happens next quarter.

And with 0.0% construction growth despite catastrophic shortages of housing and Labour pledging to boost construction to 1.5 million new homes a year.
Businesses don't wait for tax changes to be implemented before they react to them. And to be fair, there are hints that the labour market has already loosened up a bit in response.

I'm not sure there's much to be gained from debating Barty at the moment.

LostPassword · May 15

Northern_Al said:

HYUFD said:
The economic growth figures are before Trump's tariffs and Labour's NI rise on employers come into effect
Do you work for the BBC? That's pretty much what they were saying on the radio this lunchtime - the only path forward is downwards. We'll see.

On the header, I don't quite agree that "the real test is people have to feel the benefit". Positive news stories can have an impact on voting intention all on their own before, or without, people feeling the direct benefit to themselves. At one time Brexit was popular, for example, without people feeling any direct benefit to their pockets.

Group psychology is a fascinating area of study, and how it relates to politics obviously very important and consequential.

Quite what happened to result in Labour winning a huge landslide, and then having the mood of the country seem to turn against them so very quickly is worthy of study. But the mood turned very sour, very quickly, with precious little time for people to feel materially worse off.

I really haven't been following politics all that closely recently. The news from the US is particularly depressing and I've buried myself in fiction and knitting.

I'm not even sure that I'll bother to vote in the next British general election.

noneoftheabove · May 15

How much productivity is lost discussing minor fluctuations in subject to revision, quarterly GDP figures?

Scott_xP · May 15

@antonspisak.bsky.social‬

I was surprised to see in today's ONS figures that UK goods exports suddenly rose 3.5% in Q1/25.

Then I found this was almost entirely driven by a surge in UK aluminium exports to the US ahead of Trump's tariffs.

This alone pushed UK GDP growth by ~0.2 ppts (out of 0.7 ppts total in Q1). Amazing.

https://bsky.app/profile/antonspisak.bsky.social/post/3lp7sl25xyk27

Nigelb · May 15

This is perhaps the single strongest point in favour of Buttigieg's candidate.
https://x.com/DemocraticWins/status/1922773358678073540

nova · May 15

carnforth said:

nova said:

carnforth said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

carnforth said:

MoonRabbit said:

https://news.sky.com/story/leaked-recording-reveals-top-tory-knew-of-flaws-in-post-brexit-plan-to-return-illegal-migrants-13367821

Is Chris right? The stats said at least half already claimed asylum in another country?

That would have halved it straight away?
Only half to process?
Only half to put up in hotels?
Only half the costs?

MPs should ask for the actual answer to be put in front of them.
We used to ask a lot, but other countries refused our requests:

"In 2018, there were 1,940 requests from other member states to transfer individuals into the UK under the Dublin Regulation, and 5,510 requests from the UK to transfer individuals out of the UK to other member states.

Over the same period, there were 1,215 transfers into the UK under the Dublin Regulation. The majority (946) of these transfers came from Greece.

There were 209 transfers out of the UK under the Dublin Regulation. A quarter of these (51) were transfers to France."

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-statistics-year-ending-december-2018/how-many-people-do-we-grant-asylum-or-protection-to

So, we made 5510 requests, of which 209 happened.

There is no magic slam-dunk link-brexit-to-the-boats story. I promise.
So net the Dublin Regulation was seeing transfers into the UK?
Some years, yes. I can't find the table, but it was several years. And at no time was the net movement above a couple of thousand either way.

Essentially, we were following the rules and other countries weren't. As per.
I'm not sure that's totally accurate. The stats I've just linked to suggest that it was very very much the opposite, but started to come down a lot as the Brexit vote approached, (as relationships with other countries became strained?).

I can only find stats on "success of requests" from 2016, but it looks like 8% of ours were successful, but Germany and France were only successful with 6% and 5% respectively. The average was 12%, so not a massive difference either way, and certainly not suggestive that we were following rules that the other European countries weren't.
Thanks for the stats. Looks like you're right about low success rates across the board. Though "as relationships were strained" is a form of not following the rules, no?

Perhaps - although if you were going to make any assumptions, it might appear that we were being given a more than fair deal before, so perhaps other countries had begun to play more strictly. My comment was really just a guess at why they were heading down, as it certainly seems to be all change either side of the Brexit vote.

Luckyguy1983 · May 15

That man is the left wing Matt Goodwin.

Phil · May 15

Nigelb said:
This is perhaps the single strongest point in favour of Buttigieg's candidate.
https://x.com/DemocraticWins/status/1922773358678073540

Buttigieg is soft launching his bid for the Presidency it seems.

viewcode · May 15

Luckyguy1983 said:
That man is the left wing Matt Goodwin.

Which man?

OnlyLivingBoy · May 15

Scott_xP said:
@antonspisak.bsky.social‬

I was surprised to see in today's ONS figures that UK goods exports suddenly rose 3.5% in Q1/25.

Then I found this was almost entirely driven by a surge in UK aluminium exports to the US ahead of Trump's tariffs.

This alone pushed UK GDP growth by ~0.2 ppts (out of 0.7 ppts total in Q1). Amazing.

https://bsky.app/profile/antonspisak.bsky.social/post/3lp7sl25xyk27

Incorrect. The headline GDP number comes from production side data - industrial production, construction output and the index of services. The industrial production data don't show any surge in metals manufacturing. The rise in exports (of which two thirds comes from nonferrous metals) has an offset in the change in inventories - ie the aluminum was exported out of idle stock and not produced and therefore had no impact on GDP.

Chris · May 15

bondegezou said:

Malmesbury said:

rcs1000 said:

Malmesbury said:
GDP is estimated to be growing at 0.7%
Population is estimated to grow at 0.6% this year.

Hmmm….
Hang on... that's a quarter-over-quarter GDP number isn't it? Not y-o-y.
True actually. My bad.
So it's 2.8% GDP growth vs. 0.6% population growth, so 2.2% GDP-per-capita growth.

Exercise for the reader: classify those various statements as (1) lies (2) damned lies and (3) statistics.

noneoftheabove · May 15

Nigelb said:
This is perhaps the single strongest point in favour of Buttigieg's candidate.
https://x.com/DemocraticWins/status/1922773358678073540

He would be good at the job and would walk the election if it was a UK audience voting. Hope I am wrong but think he may be more likely to be a good runner up at the nominee stage, and if he does become nominee then at the main election. At the nominee stage as the Dems may want someone more lefty and at the Presidential election because of social conservatives. When he was in the running for 2020 polling showed 37% were not ready for a gay President.

williamglenn · May 15

Nigelb said:
This is perhaps the single strongest point in favour of Buttigieg's candidate.
https://x.com/DemocraticWins/status/1922773358678073540

If he's up against JD Vance it won't be a differentiator.

Leon · May 15

Cicero said:
If Labour does get a good GDP tailwind and the waiting lists continue to fall, as does the immigration number, the right is going to have real problems going forward. Thoughts and Prayers for Leon et al, if that happened.

I see Starmer is in Albania to boast about his “new version of Rwanda” only for the Albanian PM to turn around and say Nah, not happening

Oops

“Starmer trip labelled an ‘embarrassment’ as Albania rules out asylum seeker deal”

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/may/15/starmer-trip-labelled-an-embarassment-as-albania-rules-out-asylum-seeker-deal

BartholomewRoberts · May 15

bondegezou said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

OldKingCole said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Mexicanpete said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Battlebus said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

david_herdson said:

turbotubbs said:

david_herdson said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Nigelb said:
It's quite obvious the Israeli government is simply lying here.
And of course no independent journalists are allowed anywhere near Gaza.

Israel’s ‘no hunger in Gaza’ narrative flies in face of obvious evidence
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/may/14/isreal-no-hunger-in-gaza-narrative-flies-in-face-of-obvious-evidence-famine

Netanyahu now says flat out that he will not end the war.
Hamas could end the war by surrendering unconditionally and releasing the hostages.

Netanyahu is a bad, corrupt leader who should be replaced but even broken clocks can be right. Why the hell should Israel end the war before Hamas are defeated and before the hostages are released?
Because they are engaged in a crime against humanity.

Israel had the right to wage war against Hamas, and, by extension, the Gaza territory it was the de facto government of, within the bounds of the laws of international conflict. Those bounds have been so consistently breached, and, in its blockade, so grossly breached, that it's time for the international community to act.

Put simply, Israel is not conducting a war of legitimate military action but of, at minimum, ethnic cleansing and, perhaps, extermination. The latter would certainly be the practical outcome of its current policy if continues, as appears to be the Israeli government's intention.

Time to place full sanctions on the regime, and on the country.
I agree with this but can anyone tell me if hostage taking (and murder of said hostages) is a war crime?
Yes, of course it is. So was the original Hamas attack on unarmed civilians, and the murders, rapes and other crimes that accompanied it. That formed a legitimate casus belli.

However, the war crimes of one side do not legitimise* the war crimes of the other, particularly when the other's crimes are considerably in excess of the original.

* There is a case, which I'd agree with, that when one side in a war engages in actions which are illegal but give it an advantage, as a matter of policy, then that legitimises the victim to take proportionate and equivalent actions in retaliation and/or defence. This is dodgy ground legally but it cannot be right that a victim is bound to suffer further - and potentially to lose a war - in defence of a principle that the aggressor rejects. Where is the logic in that? However, that doesn't apply to Israel/Gaza, where Israel started the war with an overwhelming military advantage, and has only increased that advantage since.
An overwhelming military advantage is only relevant when the fight is conventional, but this is not a conventional war.

When Hamas use hospitals as human shields and embed themselves into Gazan society as much as they can, Israel can't use its overwhelming majority advantage so the fighting is going to be riskier and at much more risk of innocent civilian casualties.

Or they could, but it would utterly flatten and wipe out the entire population. Which they could do if they wanted to, but they haven't, quite rightly as it would not be proportional.
Yes they could and it would be genocide but what could/will the world do about it?

That’s the equation in play at the moment
Thankfully Israel isn't doing that, because they're not genocidal, no matter if they regularly get falsely accused of being so.

If Israel were half as bad as they're accused of being, the death toll would be much higher.
Oh, so Israel haven't slaughtered enough of one religious group to be considered genocidal? How many then? Do we have to wait for them to slaughter 6 million?
If they were genocidal then I'd expect 2 million dead approximately - and I would oppose that as evil.

Targetting Hamas, even if it risks collateral damage, OTOH is legitimate.

There are only three ways I can see to avoid collateral damage:

1: Hamas surrenders - my preference.
2: Innocent Palestinians get refuge elsewhere away from the violent conflict - what refuge status and asylum is supposed to be for, is it not?
3: Israel surrenders letting Hamas survive.

I don't see option 3 as acceptable. My preference is 1, then 2, others it seem prefer 3.
Killing 2 million civilians is a bit of a throwing the baby out with the bathwater solution.

I don't believe anyone is supporting Hamas. Some are just a little queasy that in order to resolve the Hamas problem we are looking at incredible levels of collateral damage.
Its reasonable to be queasy about it, but there is no other realistic, serious way of eliminating Hamas than following similar paths to that which eliminated the Tamil Tigers.

Hamas are not the IRA, and its not possible to negotiate with them like that and to try yet again is that definition of insanity quote and something Israel quite reasonably won't countenance after what happened last time.

Either come up with a serious, credible alternative path to completely eliminate Hamas or let Israel finish the job. In the mean time, for any innocent Palestinians, there should be alternative options like refugee status available which is why they exist in times of war.
It might not be so horrible if it wasn't a war involving the same ethinc group separated only by religion.
In that they are are rather like the IRA and the UV though.
In that one respect they are like them, yes.

But the IRA and UV were never anywhere near as nihilistic as Hamas.

The IRA were monsters in their own way who bombed my home town, killing children, while I was a child, but they were a completely different beast.

I don't recall IRA members committing suicide by bombing to kill as many people as they could on their way out to their 72 virgins.

I don't recall the IRA taking hundreds of hostages and killing and raping thousands in one day.
I don't recall the RAF flattening Derry either.

But peace only happens when we move beyond the past. It entails a step into the future. If Israel is not intent on genocide or ethnic cleansing, as you insist, then Israel can start by making that clear to the Palestinians.

You're right of course, Derry was never the warzone that Gaza is thanks to Hamas. Making your comparison to Northern Irelans all the more facetious and inappropriate.

An appropriate comparator would be ... Sri Lanka.

nova · May 15

Chris said:

bondegezou said:

Malmesbury said:

rcs1000 said:

Malmesbury said:
GDP is estimated to be growing at 0.7%
Population is estimated to grow at 0.6% this year.

Hmmm….
Hang on... that's a quarter-over-quarter GDP number isn't it? Not y-o-y.
True actually. My bad.
So it's 2.8% GDP growth vs. 0.6% population growth, so 2.2% GDP-per-capita growth.
Exercise for the reader: classify those various statements as (1) lies (2) damned lies and (3) statistics.

I would say two examples of pretty obvious (but easy to make) maths errors, rather than lies.

DecrepiterJohnL · May 15

Scott_xP said:
@antonspisak.bsky.social‬

I was surprised to see in today's ONS figures that UK goods exports suddenly rose 3.5% in Q1/25.

Then I found this was almost entirely driven by a surge in UK aluminium exports to the US ahead of Trump's tariffs.

This alone pushed UK GDP growth by ~0.2 ppts (out of 0.7 ppts total in Q1). Amazing.

https://bsky.app/profile/antonspisak.bsky.social/post/3lp7sl25xyk27

Huzzah for ~~Rachel~~ The Donald.

Andy_JS · May 15

Leon said:

Cicero said:
If Labour does get a good GDP tailwind and the waiting lists continue to fall, as does the immigration number, the right is going to have real problems going forward. Thoughts and Prayers for Leon et al, if that happened.
I see Starmer is in Albania to boast about his “new version of Rwanda” only for the Albanian PM to turn around and say Nah, not happening

Oops

“Starmer trip labelled an ‘embarrassment’ as Albania rules out asylum seeker deal”

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/may/15/starmer-trip-labelled-an-embarassment-as-albania-rules-out-asylum-seeker-deal

Didn't he bother checking first? Bizarre.

nico67 · May 15

Leon said:

Cicero said:
If Labour does get a good GDP tailwind and the waiting lists continue to fall, as does the immigration number, the right is going to have real problems going forward. Thoughts and Prayers for Leon et al, if that happened.
I see Starmer is in Albania to boast about his “new version of Rwanda” only for the Albanian PM to turn around and say Nah, not happening

Oops

“Starmer trip labelled an ‘embarrassment’ as Albania rules out asylum seeker deal”

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/may/15/starmer-trip-labelled-an-embarassment-as-albania-rules-out-asylum-seeker-deal

It’s bizarre . Aren’t these things pre-arranged so there’s no major embarrassments during visits . Surely there would have been conversations with the Albanian PM before to get his agreement .

david_herdson · May 15

noneoftheabove said:
How much productivity is lost discussing minor fluctuations in subject to revision, quarterly GDP figures?

Not as much as the ludicrous monthly figures.

MaxPB · May 15

Wishful thinking.

DecrepiterJohnL · May 15

williamglenn said:

Nigelb said:
This is perhaps the single strongest point in favour of Buttigieg's candidate.
https://x.com/DemocraticWins/status/1922773358678073540
If he's up against JD Vance it won't be a differentiator.

Pete needs a shave.

david_herdson · May 15

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Scott_xP said:
@antonspisak.bsky.social‬

I was surprised to see in today's ONS figures that UK goods exports suddenly rose 3.5% in Q1/25.

Then I found this was almost entirely driven by a surge in UK aluminium exports to the US ahead of Trump's tariffs.

This alone pushed UK GDP growth by ~0.2 ppts (out of 0.7 ppts total in Q1). Amazing.

https://bsky.app/profile/antonspisak.bsky.social/post/3lp7sl25xyk27
Incorrect. The headline GDP number comes from production side data - industrial production, construction output and the index of services. The industrial production data don't show any surge in metals manufacturing. The rise in exports (of which two thirds comes from nonferrous metals) has an offset in the change in inventories - ie the aluminum was exported out of idle stock and not produced and therefore had no impact on GDP.

Exports are a component of GDP.

National Income would be a better description than 'production'.

Luckyguy1983 · May 15

viewcode said:

Luckyguy1983 said:
That man is the left wing Matt Goodwin.
Which man?

Luke Tryll.

DecrepiterJohnL · May 15

Leon said:

Cicero said:
If Labour does get a good GDP tailwind and the waiting lists continue to fall, as does the immigration number, the right is going to have real problems going forward. Thoughts and Prayers for Leon et al, if that happened.
I see Starmer is in Albania to boast about his “new version of Rwanda” only for the Albanian PM to turn around and say Nah, not happening

Oops

“Starmer trip labelled an ‘embarrassment’ as Albania rules out asylum seeker deal”

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/may/15/starmer-trip-labelled-an-embarassment-as-albania-rules-out-asylum-seeker-deal

What is the betting significance? A new Foreign Secretary in the reshuffle or is this a Downing Street cock-up?

DecrepiterJohnL · May 15

OT just rediscovered some Ritter's chocolate I bought on PB's recommendation some time back. It's awful. Somewhere between milk and dark chocolate with a waxy texture.

That said, I do not normally eat chocolate anyway.

carnforth · May 15

DecrepiterJohnL said:
OT just rediscovered some Ritter's chocolate I bought on PB's recommendation some time back. It's awful. Somewhere between milk and dark chocolate with a waxy texture.

That said, I do not normally eat chocolate anyway.

Put it in the fridge. Best way to deal with cheap chocolate.

The kidz are eating this stuff nowadays: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dubai_chocolate

No_Offence_Alan · May 15

Andy_JS said:

Malmesbury said:
GDP is estimated to be growing at 0.7%
Population is estimated to grow at 0.6% this year.

Hmmm….
So almost no growth in real terms.

No, it means the rise in GDP has already more than covered the expected annual growth in population, within just the first 3 months.
The next 9 months are bonus.

kinabalu · May 15

This "feeling it" business, a lot of that comes from narratives pushed by vested interests. People don't decide how they feel based purely on objective reality.

BlancheLivermore · May 15

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Leon said:

Cicero said:
If Labour does get a good GDP tailwind and the waiting lists continue to fall, as does the immigration number, the right is going to have real problems going forward. Thoughts and Prayers for Leon et al, if that happened.
I see Starmer is in Albania to boast about his “new version of Rwanda” only for the Albanian PM to turn around and say Nah, not happening

Oops

“Starmer trip labelled an ‘embarrassment’ as Albania rules out asylum seeker deal”

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/may/15/starmer-trip-labelled-an-embarassment-as-albania-rules-out-asylum-seeker-deal
What is the betting significance? A new Foreign Secretary in the reshuffle or is this a Downing Street cock-up?

You think it might have been an Albanian cabbie?

Andy_JS · May 15

"A significant part of the growth the UK has experienced is due to the fact that there are more people living here. When it comes to living standards, it’s what’s happening to GDP per Head (which divides GDP by the total UK population) that really matters. GDP per Head in the UK (£9,279) is only 0.1% higher than when Labour came to power in July (£9,269) last year and is still lower than it was at the end of 2019 (£9,316) just before the start of the pandemic."

https://www.itv.com/news/2025-05-15/uk-economy-speeds-up-but-living-standards-still-stuck-in-the-slow-lane

OnlyLivingBoy · May 15

david_herdson said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Scott_xP said:
@antonspisak.bsky.social‬

I was surprised to see in today's ONS figures that UK goods exports suddenly rose 3.5% in Q1/25.

Then I found this was almost entirely driven by a surge in UK aluminium exports to the US ahead of Trump's tariffs.

This alone pushed UK GDP growth by ~0.2 ppts (out of 0.7 ppts total in Q1). Amazing.

https://bsky.app/profile/antonspisak.bsky.social/post/3lp7sl25xyk27
Incorrect. The headline GDP number comes from production side data - industrial production, construction output and the index of services. The industrial production data don't show any surge in metals manufacturing. The rise in exports (of which two thirds comes from nonferrous metals) has an offset in the change in inventories - ie the aluminum was exported out of idle stock and not produced and therefore had no impact on GDP.
Exports are a component of GDP.

National Income would be a better description than 'production'.

Exports are a component of GDP from the expenditure side. But the headline growth number comes from the production (or Gross Value Added, GVA) data, especially in the early vintages of the data, because the ONS views these data as more reliable. Any strength in net exports that doesn't show up in production is therefore mechanically offset by a fall in the inventories contribution on the expenditure side, as indeed it was this quarter. And since there was no surge in aluminum production evident in the industrial production data, it is evident that these exports did indeed come out of inventories, rather than increased output or GDP.

AnneJGP · May 15

Stark_Dawning said:

Andy_JS said:

williamglenn said:
https://x.com/thenewsagents/status/1922991350787535026

"Nigel Farage is running a 𝙘𝙪𝙡𝙩... he's surrounded by people whose idea of policy is to wander to The Marquis Of Granby for a pint."

Ex-Reform MP @RupertLowe10 says Farage is "not fit to be Prime Minister."
He's getting boring now, Lowe.
He makes a fair point though - if Nigel was prepared to have him locked up because he got in his way politically, what would he do with the full mechanisms of the state behind him?

With Mr Trump for an example, some of us may feel queasy about giving him a chance.

rottenborough · May 15

DecrepiterJohnL said:

williamglenn said:

Nigelb said:
This is perhaps the single strongest point in favour of Buttigieg's candidate.
https://x.com/DemocraticWins/status/1922773358678073540
If he's up against JD Vance it won't be a differentiator.
Pete needs a shave.

That's the 'I'm out of office and just a regular joe' look.

Northern_Al · May 15

Luckyguy1983 said:
That man is the left wing Matt Goodwin.

Very left wing. Luke Tryl was a SPAD to Nicky Morgan when she was Education Secretary, before she seconded him to Ofsted. I suppose in your scheme of things working for the Tories = left wing.

Luckyguy1983 · May 15

Northern_Al said:

Luckyguy1983 said:
That man is the left wing Matt Goodwin.
Very left wing. Luke Tryl was a SPAD to Nicky Morgan when she was Education Secretary, before she seconded him to Ofsted. I suppose in your scheme of things working for the Tories = left wing.

In Nicky Morgan's case it most certainly does.

SandyRentool · May 15

I'll say the same thing I say whenever GDP figures are released.

What is the +/- uncertainty range? 100.7% of last quarter, +/-2 percentage points (say) is nonsense on stilts.

Luckyguy1983 · May 15

AnneJGP said:

Stark_Dawning said:

Andy_JS said:

williamglenn said:
https://x.com/thenewsagents/status/1922991350787535026

"Nigel Farage is running a 𝙘𝙪𝙡𝙩... he's surrounded by people whose idea of policy is to wander to The Marquis Of Granby for a pint."

Ex-Reform MP @RupertLowe10 says Farage is "not fit to be Prime Minister."
He's getting boring now, Lowe.
He makes a fair point though - if Nigel was prepared to have him locked up because he got in his way politically, what would he do with the full mechanisms of the state behind him?
With Mr Trump for an example, some of us may feel queasy about giving him a chance.

I wonder if Lowe is preparing to join the Tories. His attacks on Reform for amateurish policy are genuine (I think this was the source of his initial beef with Nige), but they are also very 'Kemi-esque'.

maxh · May 15

SandyRentool said:
I'll say the same thing I say whenever GDP figures are released.

What is the +/- uncertainty range? 100.7% of last quarter, +/-2 percentage points (say) is nonsense on stilts.

In general Sandy if more reporting of stats gave +/- uncertainty ranges then we'd significantly increase the quality of public debate at almost zero cost (those who can't, or can't be bothered to, understand the uncertainty still get the central estimate).

Cookie · May 15

Andy_JS said:

Leon said:

Cicero said:
If Labour does get a good GDP tailwind and the waiting lists continue to fall, as does the immigration number, the right is going to have real problems going forward. Thoughts and Prayers for Leon et al, if that happened.
I see Starmer is in Albania to boast about his “new version of Rwanda” only for the Albanian PM to turn around and say Nah, not happening

Oops

“Starmer trip labelled an ‘embarrassment’ as Albania rules out asylum seeker deal”

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/may/15/starmer-trip-labelled-an-embarassment-as-albania-rules-out-asylum-seeker-deal
Didn't he bother checking first? Bizarre.

Kinda gives the lie to the 'immigrants are a benefit' line if even Albania doesn't want them.

Taz · May 15

FPT

Did we establish what MLS is ?

It won’t be Major League Soccer.

maxh · May 15

Cookie said:

Andy_JS said:

Leon said:

Cicero said:
If Labour does get a good GDP tailwind and the waiting lists continue to fall, as does the immigration number, the right is going to have real problems going forward. Thoughts and Prayers for Leon et al, if that happened.
I see Starmer is in Albania to boast about his “new version of Rwanda” only for the Albanian PM to turn around and say Nah, not happening

Oops

“Starmer trip labelled an ‘embarrassment’ as Albania rules out asylum seeker deal”

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/may/15/starmer-trip-labelled-an-embarassment-as-albania-rules-out-asylum-seeker-deal
Didn't he bother checking first? Bizarre.
Kinda gives the lie to the 'immigrants are a benefit' line if even Albania doesn't want them.

Though in the broader sense of benefit, it wouldn't be enormously surprising if an immigrant was a net benefit to a country they choose to go to, but a net disbenefit to a country they are sent to unwillingly.

I know I'd be a bit grumpy if I got shipped off to Albania.

MattW · May 15

noneoftheabove said:
How much productivity is lost discussing minor fluctuations in subject to revision, quarterly GDP figures?

Probably a lot less than lost in discussing similar fluctuations in polls !

When I become President, "Baxtering" outside year 5 of a Parliamentary Term will be a capital offence

Dopermean · May 15

Luckyguy1983 said:

Northern_Al said:

Luckyguy1983 said:
That man is the left wing Matt Goodwin.
Very left wing. Luke Tryl was a SPAD to Nicky Morgan when she was Education Secretary, before she seconded him to Ofsted. I suppose in your scheme of things working for the Tories = left wing.
In Nicky Morgan's case it most certainly does.

He's also a former Director of that hotbed of trotskyites the New Schools Network

algarkirk · May 15

Andy_JS said:
"A significant part of the growth the UK has experienced is due to the fact that there are more people living here. When it comes to living standards, it’s what’s happening to GDP per Head (which divides GDP by the total UK population) that really matters. GDP per Head in the UK (£9,279) is only 0.1% higher than when Labour came to power in July (£9,269) last year and is still lower than it was at the end of 2019 (£9,316) just before the start of the pandemic."

https://www.itv.com/news/2025-05-15/uk-economy-speeds-up-but-living-standards-still-stuck-in-the-slow-lane

The report is a bit unclear about the time period. I think it must refer to GDP per head per quarter, but it doesn't say so. As an annual GDP it makes no sense.

noneoftheabove · May 15

Cookie said:

Andy_JS said:

Leon said:

Cicero said:
If Labour does get a good GDP tailwind and the waiting lists continue to fall, as does the immigration number, the right is going to have real problems going forward. Thoughts and Prayers for Leon et al, if that happened.
I see Starmer is in Albania to boast about his “new version of Rwanda” only for the Albanian PM to turn around and say Nah, not happening

Oops

“Starmer trip labelled an ‘embarrassment’ as Albania rules out asylum seeker deal”

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/may/15/starmer-trip-labelled-an-embarassment-as-albania-rules-out-asylum-seeker-deal
Didn't he bother checking first? Bizarre.
Kinda gives the lie to the 'immigrants are a benefit' line if even Albania doesn't want them.

If there is anyone who believes immigrants are a benefit regardless of the number of them and the demographics and economy of the nation they are safe to be ignored, just as those who believe immigrants are always a cost.

It will depend on lots of stuff! So the impact of the same immigrant to Albania and the UK will be different shocker. For a start we speak different languages.....

Dopermean · May 15

Taz said:
FPT

Did we establish what MLS is ?

It won’t be Major League Soccer.

I'm plumping for Metro Line Station
my memory is hazy admittedly but I don't recall the Metro turnstiles being anything other than decorative

Also the armoured ticket machines at Meadow Well station, don't expect a revenue protection officer would have lasted more than a few minutes there

Leon · May 15

Should we even ALLOW lesbians?

rcs1000 · May 15

Not just from the previous thread, but the one before that...

JosiasJessop said:

Malmesbury said:

JosiasJessop said:

Malmesbury said:
a
Nigelb said:
Ridiculous failure.

https://x.com/s8mb/status/1922732865650831769
The HS2 line between Birmingham and Old Oak Common in outer London will now cost £126bn and be finished in 2039.

Doesn’t include the trains, the Euston bit, or any of the other bits to Manchester, Crewe or Leeds, which it was once said would cost well below £100bn put together.
For that money, we could build a reusable heavy lift rocket and have our own moon landings. Probably 5x over, if we don’t let BAe near it.
Before you can say that, we need SpaceX to build a working reusable heavy lift rocket and for the US to make their own moon landings. Because SpaceX have not yet made a reusable heavy lift rocket, and the US moon landings seem to be further away than ever. And until it's done, we cannot know the costs.
Given the efforts by various companies, a £20bn is high end for a reusable *super* heavy booster (Starship/New Armstrong)

A merely heavy booster (Delta IV heavy/F9H) would be much less.

The architecture to get from that to the moon is well known and discussed- it didn't meet political considerations. See the Obama plan to cancel SLS.
My point is we can't tell, as it's not been done yet. BO has a glacial pace atm (sadly...), whilst Musky Baby is already talking about Starship V3, when V1 and V2 failed - and V3 uses many future potential updates just to try to get the capacity that was promised for V1.

The current architecture to get to the Moon is imperiled by the potential cancellation of SLS. Starting again afresh will be costly and, more importantly, time-consuming.

My friends in the aerospace/space industry here in SoCal are sounding increasing downbeat about Starship - like it'll never work because the weight reductions they need to achieve compromise structural integrity too much negative. And these are people who absolutely love SpaceX.

rcs1000 · May 15

Taz said:
FPT

Did we establish what MLS is ?

It won’t be Major League Soccer.

Errr: I was at an MLS match last night.

GO LAFC!

BlancheLivermore · May 15

Dopermean said:

Taz said:
FPT

Did we establish what MLS is ?

It won’t be Major League Soccer.
I'm plumping for Metro Line Station
my memory is hazy admittedly but I don't recall the Metro turnstiles being anything other than decorative
Also the armoured ticket machines at Meadow Well station, don't expect a revenue protection officer would have lasted more than a few minutes there

Not Machester Lime Street (like I suggested on the last thread)?

IanB2 · May 15

Andy_JS said:
"A significant part of the growth the UK has experienced is due to the fact that there are more people living here. When it comes to living standards, it’s what’s happening to GDP per Head (which divides GDP by the total UK population) that really matters. GDP per Head in the UK (£9,279) is only 0.1% higher than when Labour came to power in July (£9,269) last year and is still lower than it was at the end of 2019 (£9,316) just before the start of the pandemic."

https://www.itv.com/news/2025-05-15/uk-economy-speeds-up-but-living-standards-still-stuck-in-the-slow-lane

GDP per head is in any case an idiotic measure when the big story of recent decades is that almost all of the growth has been captured by those few who were already the most wealthy.

Leon · May 15

Chairs: Yes or No?

We've come to accept them, but should we? They clutter up pur houses, they fall over very very very occasionally, you can put whoopee cushions on them to embarrassing visiting members of the clergy, they aren't THAT good for sexual bondage experiments although I do my best

So, why? Japan - influenced by the Tang Dynasty - went entirely without chairs until about the 19th century forcing them to sit in appalling cramped "seiza" positions, why can't we do that?

Concanvasser · May 15

Something that certainly has improved recently is Radio 3, whose listening figures are up. The 7pm Classical Mix tape is a daily joy and worth a listen.

BlancheLivermore · May 15

Leon said:
Should we even ALLOW lesbians?

They do seem to be excessively transphobic for some mysterious reason..

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

Categories

Narrative changers – politicalbetting.com

Comments